The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mixed ruling Thursday in an immigration case involving Hendri Phang, an Indonesian national who challenged the Board of Immigration Appeals' handling of his request to reopen removal proceedings. The court partially granted and partially denied Phang's petition for review, with Judge Clifton filing a partial concurrence and partial dissent.
The case, *Hendri Phang v. Pamela Bondi*, centers on the BIA's denial of Phang's motion to reopen his removal proceedings. According to the court's memorandum, the BIA failed to address Phang's alternative request that the proceedings be reopened sua sponte, which refers to the board's ability to reopen cases on its own initiative.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision for abuse of discretion, applying the standard established in *Mohammed v. Gonzales* (9th Cir. 2005). Under this standard, the appeals court examines whether the immigration board's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, or contrary to law.
Regarding the primary motion to reopen, the court found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Phang's request. Federal immigration law establishes strict timing requirements for reopening motions. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the entry of a final administrative order of removal, unless exceptional circumstances apply.
The court noted that Phang sought to invoke an exception for changed circumstances in his home country. However, the available text indicates the court found this argument insufficient to meet the statutory requirements for reopening beyond the 90-day deadline.
The more complex aspect of the case involved Phang's alternative request for sua sponte reopening. When an immigrant requests that the BIA reopen proceedings on its own initiative, the board must at least acknowledge and consider this request, even if it ultimately denies it. The failure to address such requests can constitute procedural error warranting appellate intervention.
The court's decision to partially grant the petition suggests the BIA's handling of the sua sponte reopening request was deficient. This type of procedural oversight has become increasingly common in immigration appeals, where high caseloads and administrative pressures sometimes lead to incomplete consideration of all arguments presented.
The case was submitted to the three-judge panel on Feb. 2, 2026, in Pasadena, California. The panel consisted of Circuit Judges Graber, Clifton, and Johnstone. Notably, Judge Clifton filed a partial concurrence and partial dissent, indicating disagreement with some aspect of the majority's reasoning or conclusion.
The court's decision to remand the case means it will return to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with the Ninth Circuit's ruling. This typically requires the immigration board to address any procedural deficiencies identified by the appeals court and reconsider the case accordingly.
Immigration cases involving motions to reopen present recurring challenges in federal courts. The 90-day deadline for filing such motions is strictly enforced, but exceptions exist for extraordinary circumstances or changes in country conditions that could affect an immigrant's safety upon return.
Sua sponte reopening authority provides immigration judges and the BIA with discretionary power to reopen cases when justice requires it, even without a formal motion from the immigrant. However, this authority is rarely exercised, and courts have emphasized that immigration boards must at least consider such requests when they are properly presented.
The case reflects broader systemic issues in immigration proceedings, where procedural requirements often determine outcomes regardless of the underlying merits. Critics of the current system argue that strict deadlines and procedural hurdles can prevent consideration of legitimate claims, particularly for immigrants who lack adequate legal representation.
For Indonesian nationals facing removal proceedings, the case underscores the importance of meeting all procedural requirements and presenting alternative arguments for relief. Indonesia's political and security conditions have evolved significantly in recent years, potentially affecting the circumstances that originally led to removal orders.
The Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction encompasses several states with significant Indonesian immigrant populations, making the court's immigration precedents particularly relevant for this community. The circuit has historically taken a more immigrant-friendly approach compared to other federal circuits, though it still applies statutory requirements strictly.
The memorandum decision, marked "not for publication," means it cannot be cited as precedent in future cases except under limited circumstances outlined in Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. However, the decision still provides guidance on how the BIA must handle sua sponte reopening requests.
Phang's case will now return to the BIA for reconsideration of the sua sponte reopening issue. The immigration board must address this aspect of his request and provide adequate reasoning for its decision, whether ultimately granting or denying the relief sought.
The mixed outcome reflects the complex nature of immigration appeals, where procedural victories do not always translate to substantive relief for immigrants facing removal.